On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That smells like something we should be able to do without a lock.
>
> If we use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() on those two fields (->active_timers and
> ->next_timer) we should be able to do this without the spinlock.
Yeah, when atomics were suggested earlier, I was wondering if we could
just use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE.
> Races here aren't really a problem I think, if you manage to install a
> timer at the current jiffy and have already missed the tick you're in
> the same boat. You get to wait for the next tick.
The lock shouldn't be used in get_next_timer_interrupt() either right?
unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now)
{
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
/*
* On PREEMPT_RT we cannot sleep here. If the trylock does not
* succeed then we return the worst-case 'expires in 1 tick'
* value. We use the rt functions here directly to avoid a
* migrate_disable() call.
*/
if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock))
return now + 1;
#else
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
